[feannigvogten]

Why not just force families to choose one member to set them selves on fire, it achieves the same result.

That literally doesn't make any sense given the context.

[Vmysobfi]

that seems in line with most of his other posts

[education]

Would you be typing the same thing from your domestically produced $15,000 computer?

This is such a funny statement. Of course we (as in 1st world countries) could produce them domestically and still be able to afford them. Nike could still take 130€ for their running shoes, but the costs of making them would be 50€ instead of 3€ as it is now. So they would be making less profit but still profit. This has nothing to do with Michael Moore polemic but its the way it is. And maybe my PC would cost 6000€ instead of 1000€ then, but people spend 20000€ on their kitchens, so why not a little more on PCs.

Its just about (shareholders) greed.

[unioneserry]

Its just about (shareholders) greed.

This is such a funny statement.

Nike's Return on Equity is 22%.

Try that with production costs 1566% higher, as illustrated by your statement above.

You should be careful with the populist press.

[UTHZzJ6f]

Nike could still take 130€ for their running shoes, but the costs of making them would be 50€ instead of 3€ as it is now..

The majority of people on here could do with understanding a bit more about how the supply chain works.

Manufacturing costs are just a minor part of getting goods to market.

Nike have a high gross profit margin (around 42%), but they have a board of directors and shareholders to appease. As such, they have to find the cheapest way to do everything.

I have no idea what their net profit is, but I'd expect it to be about half of that, which is a very fair return for an FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) based company. We try and maintain around a 30% net profit for example.

EDIT: These are just facts. I don't want to get into oneupmanship on who knows best about the moral dilemma of the issue.

This is what happens when profits dip at a publicly owned company... http://news.yahoo.com/nike-posts-sma...--finance.html

[Preegovesem]

This is such a funny statement. Of course we (as in 1st world countries) could produce them domestically and still be able to afford them. Nike could still take 130€ for their running shoes, but the costs of making them would be 50€ instead of 3€ as it is now. So they would be making less profit but still profit. This has nothing to do with Michael Moore polemic but its the way it is. And maybe my PC would cost 6000€ instead of 1000€ then, but people spend 20000€ on their kitchens, so why not a little more on PCs.Its just about (shareholders) greed.

What, and take jobs from poor people in poor countries? Not many think about it from this perspective

[BoBoMasterDesign]

The majority of people on here could do with understanding a bit more about how the supply chain works.

Manufacturing costs are just a minor part of getting goods to market.

Nike have a high gross profit margin (around 42%), but they have a board of directors and shareholders to appease. As such, they have to find the cheapest way to do everything.

I have no idea what their net profit is, but I'd expect it to be about half of that, which is a very fair return for an FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) based company. We try and maintain around a 30% net profit for example.

EDIT: These are just facts. I don't want to get into oneupmanship on who knows best about the moral dilemma of the issue.

This is what happens when profits dip at a publicly owned company... http://news.yahoo.com/nike-posts-sma...--finance.html

But that's how the free market works doesn't it ?

If you manage to constantly cut costs over the years, while increasing prices over a few decades, you end up with very high profits.

Of course no one is going to take it lightly later if the profits dip.

[ballerturfali]

But that's how the free market works doesn't it ?

If you manage to constantly cut costs over the years, while increasing prices over a few decades, you end up with very high profits.

Of course no one is going to take it lightly later if the profits dip.

Seriously dude, learn to separate things!

My comment about the issues of share price dropping were not directly related to the logistics of how products get to market.

[bensabath]

Seriously dude, learn to separate things!

My comment about the issues of share price dropping were not directly related to the logistics of how products get to market.

Ok, ok. Calm down dear.

[Elelaytet]

This is such a funny statement.

Nike's Return on Equity is 22%.

Try that with production costs 1566% higher, as illustrated by your statement above.

You should be careful with the populist press.

Production doesnt equal total costs. The problem is that a CEO and the board of directors MUST generate as much profite as possible since the shareholders sit right in their necks. But there is nothing which would stand in the way of producing the good locally. A company would still make profit. The question here is how much is enough.

[DoroKickcrofe]

Well, there's at least one American owned and located company that has been returning profit margins on it's products of well over 80% (their figures)!

Yeah, it's Microsoft - started with fraudulent actions and continued to use their virtual monopoly to rip 'clients' off ever since!
Remember that the next time the Gates' talk about their charitible work!

[Nothatspecial]

There are some funny comments overall here.

There is a distinction between 'made in' and 'assembled in'. If you take most phones or computers, they're 'assembled in China', but the components are 'made' all over the world. The bring an entire supply chain to one country, like the US, would be hugely expensive and you'd miss out on most of the economies of scale you get from sharing the same resources as other companies use. Ramping up production and winding it down on a multitude of products would be almost impossible in the US in today's world.

The fact is you'd pay a lot more and most people would go to a brand that cost less.

[movlabk]

Of course we (as in 1st world countries) could produce them domestically and still be able to afford them. Nike could still take 130€ for their running shoes, but the costs of making them would be 50€ instead of 3€ as it is now. So they would be making less profit but still profit. This has nothing to do with Michael Moore polemic but its the way it is. And maybe my PC would cost 6000€ instead of 1000€ then, but people spend 20000€ on their kitchens, so why not a little more on PCs.

http://www.newbalance.com/men/shoes/...,sc.html?sz=96

I am pretty certain the costs for NB are not 50€ (also neat touch to differentiate between made in and assembled in the USA), but in the end people can vote with their wallet.

If you spend 100 USD on shoes made in China, you got NO RIGHT to whine about outsourcing to low cost countries.


Edit: dam I was wrting while Zoolok posted about made in vs assembled in

[girlsround]

That's a good point, down here you have to be quite careful how you read the packing information as it will often be 'packaged in' one country while the product actually comes from another in bulk before being packaged.
In some cases, it's economic sense with global car companies, for example, producing different models in different countries to be sent all over the world, rather than have multiple production lines in several countries.

[WUlcN1Rz]

That literally doesn't make any sense given the context.

Reply to nonsense with nonsense, the post it was replying to made no sense.

[Abofedrorobox]

This is pertinent to the conversation.

Apple just made 9 billion and the investors are mad

[maniaringsq]

Mitt, lets talk again about those tax returns...

Well, if he did nothing illegal, there is nothing wrong to say about Mitt. If he could pay 0% tax legally, how can one get pissed off at a man doing his taxes that the government requires him to be doing, and fallowed TurboTax advice?

What is wrong is the tax code, and anyone in government who doesn't want to fix the issue. Though, im sure it is hard to fix the issue when all the key players in government would be effected by higher taxes. They are out for their best interest as well, so it would really be hard to trust those guys to increase their own taxes and close the vary loopholes that they themselves use.


Obama's rate is nothing pretty either. Yeah it is higher, but people want it higher than where even Obama's is at for his level income, so flog Obama for his rate as well.

[sensation]

Reddog,

Do you believe that Mitt Romney is the solution right now?

[jeepgrandch]

Blame shifting, or saying "but you did this too!" is awesome.

[wiweimeli]

Reddog,

Do you believe that Mitt Romney is the solution right now?

I don't like either. Lesser of both evils.